2. The brief factual matrix, as emerges from the record, is that the plaintiff–appellant is the father of defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 is the wife of defendant No.2, whereas defendant No.3 is the mother of defendant No.1. It was the case of the plaintiff that he had purchased the suit property by way of a registered sale deed dated 10.02.2006 and had permi%ed defendant No.2, being his son, to reside therein a&er marriage. Alleging that the defendants intended to grab the property, the plaintiff instituted the suit seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 29.05.2013 executed in favour of defendant No.1 is illegal, null and void and without consideration. Consequential reliefs of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction were also sought.

3. The defendants contested the suit, specifically pleading that the plaintiff himself had executed a valid sale deed dated 29.05.2013 (Ex.PW2/B) in favour of defendant No.1 for a consideration of ₹17,50,000/-, thereby transferring absolute title in the suit property.

4. Upon appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court returned a categorical finding that the execution of the sale deed dated 29.05.2013 stood duly proved and that the p